One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
I would rather be corrected than agreed with, if it comes to it.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What the dose-response curve actually looks like above 1.7mg, because the trial means hide how few people account for the extra loss?
Dr.PulmRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. Not convinced. The evidence being cited is consistent with the conclusion and also consistent with two other conclusions nobody has ruled out.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PulmRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Agreed, and ALT falling is not the same as fibrosis improving. Enzymes are a crude proxy; FIB-4 or elastography is what tells you about the thing that matters.
Dr.PulmRoch said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
Thank you for spelling out the reasoning rather than just the conclusion. Adding it to my notes with a link back to this thread.